9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income in relation to the return submitted for the assessment year 1962-63. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the cancellation of a penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. The assessee had disclosed different sales figures before the sales tax authorities and the income-tax authorities for the same assessment year. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,670 after finding discrepancies in the assessee's explanations regarding various financial transactions and investments. The assessee's contention that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) did not apply due to the year of assessment was rejected by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who held that concealment of income was deliberate and established, resulting in the penalty. In the subsequent appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the penalty was canceled based on the lack of evidence provided by the Revenue to disbelieve the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal held that without concrete evidence showing inaccuracies in the assessee's income particulars, the penalty could not be upheld. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 to support its decision to cancel the penalty. However, the High Court, in its detailed analysis, emphasized that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) would apply in cases where there is a significant difference between the returned income and the assessed income. Referring to previous Full Bench decisions, the Court highlighted that once the Explanation becomes operative, legal presumptions of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are raised against the assessee, which can be rebutted. The burden of proof to rebut these presumptions lies on the assessee. In this case, the Court found that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to justify the discrepancies in sales figures and investments, leading to a clear case of concealment of income. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty and held in favor of the Revenue, reinstating the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The judgment reiterated the application of legal provisions and precedents to determine concealment of income and levy of penalties under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee to rebut presumptions of concealment.
|
